↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

A randomized, Phase IIb study investigating oliceridine (TRV130), a novel µ-receptor G-protein pathway selective (µ-GPS) modulator, for the management of moderate to severe acute pain following…

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Pain Research, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
125 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
99 Mendeley
Title
A randomized, Phase IIb study investigating oliceridine (TRV130), a novel µ-receptor G-protein pathway selective (µ-GPS) modulator, for the management of moderate to severe acute pain following abdominoplasty
Published in
Journal of Pain Research, October 2017
DOI 10.2147/jpr.s137952
Pubmed ID
Authors

Neil Singla, Harold S Minkowitz, David G Soergel, David A Burt, Ruth Ann Subach, Monica Y Salamea, Michael J Fossler, Franck Skobieranda

Abstract

Oliceridine (TRV130), a novel μ-receptor G-protein pathway selective (μ-GPS) modulator, was designed to improve the therapeutic window of conventional opioids by activating G-protein signaling while causing low β-arrestin recruitment to the μ receptor. This randomized, double-blind, patient-controlled analgesia Phase IIb study was conducted to investigate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of oliceridine compared with morphine and placebo in patients with moderate to severe pain following abdominoplasty (NCT02335294; oliceridine is an investigational agent not yet approved by the US Food and Drug Administration). Patients were randomized to receive postoperative regimens of intravenous oliceridine (loading/patient-controlled demand doses [mg/mg]: 1.5/0.10 [regimen A]; 1.5/0.35 [regimen B]), morphine (4.0/1.0), or placebo with treatment initiated within 4 hours of surgery and continued as needed for 24 hours. Two hundred patients were treated (n=39, n=39, n=83, and n=39 in the oliceridine regimen A, oliceridine regimen B, morphine, and placebo groups, respectively). Patients were predominantly female (n=198 [99%]) and had a mean age of 38.2 years, weight of 71.2 kg, and baseline pain score of 7.7 (on 11-point numeric pain rating scale). Patients receiving the oliceridine regimens had reductions in average pain scores (model-based change in time-weighted average versus placebo over 24 hours) of 2.3 and 2.1 points, respectively (P=0.0001 and P=0.0005 versus placebo); patients receiving morphine had a similar reduction (2.1 points; P<0.0001 versus placebo). A lower prevalence of adverse events (AEs) related to nausea, vomiting, and respiratory function was observed with the oliceridine regimens than with morphine (P<0.05). Other AEs with oliceridine were generally dose-related and similar in nature to those observed with conventional opioids; no serious AEs were reported with oliceridine. These results suggest that oliceridine may provide effective, rapid analgesia in patients with moderate to severe postoperative pain, with an acceptable safety/tolerability profile and potentially wider therapeutic window than morphine.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 99 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 20 20%
Student > Master 13 13%
Researcher 11 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Other 12 12%
Unknown 29 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 14 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 6%
Other 12 12%
Unknown 34 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 August 2020.
All research outputs
#6,303,730
of 23,012,811 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pain Research
#623
of 1,763 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,010
of 322,456 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pain Research
#21
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,012,811 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,763 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 322,456 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.